Can I still be Catholic if I don’t necessarily believe in everything the church teaches?

[setarcos]

I’m not sure how you gathered that out of what I said. That’s not my position at all. The latter half of my message was what I was getting at. What is the point of sharing personal visions? They’re hardly revelatory since they don’t fall outside the purview of what the Church teaches anyway. They are personal, meaning beyond the person receiving the vision they cannot be substantiated. How does the Church substantiate personal visions? Simply by making sure they don’t go against what the Church already teaches. In my opinion spreading these stories of personal visions is just exploitation of personal visions and dangerous in that they can be used to manipulate people into believing something that never took place.

So they would be more believable or credible to you if they deterred from Church teaching?

In my opinion they would be more believable if personal visions were to remain personal and visions meant to convey a message to all should be capable of being objectively verified in some manner.

 

[semper_catholicus]

You cannot be Catholic and deny the existence of Purgatory.

 

[Gorgias]

I thought it was ok if I didn’t 100% agree with the Church in some regards as long as I still followed the majority of it.

Well, I think that the way to look at it might be “although I don’t understand and/or agree with these things that the Church teaches, I’m still going to keep an open mind and hope to come to an understanding and/or acceptance of them somewhere down the line.” That, to my mind, would seem to be sufficient.

My main issues are that I question the existence of Purgatory

Are you 100% perfect today? Do you think that you’ll be 100% perfect on the day you die? The Bible says that nothing imperfect will be in heaven. Soooo… something has to change between the point you die and the point you enter heaven, to make you perfect. We call that “something” Purgation.

Does that seem problematic to you?

and I don’t believe in the Church’s stance on birth control.

That might be a discussion for another day. Can you, though, say to yourself that you fully understand the Church’s rationale behind the “no artificial birth control” teaching?

Blessings,
G.

 

[MiserereMei25]

How should they be evaluated and verified in your opinion?

That’s why we have a magisterium.

 

[Gorgias]

I know natural family planning is acceptable. I just don’t understand how that is conceptually any different from taking a pill or using a barrier - all methods are for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy

So, let me give an intentionally over-the-top thought experiment:

For someone who dislikes our current POTUS, is it ok to pray to God to remove him from office? Is it ok to take out a pistol and shoot him? I mean… they’re not conceptually different, since they both end up with him out of office, right? And yet, the former is morally acceptable, while the other is clearly not acceptable.

Similar thing with birth control: using natural methods toward an end is acceptable, but using artificial methods – which disrupt the act itself – are not, says the Church.

I don’t see why, for example, a couple who can’t afford or care for any more children shouldn’t be able to use other forms of birth control if natural family planning is acceptable.

Because it’s all about the moral character of the act of intercourse, and therefore, the morality of the method.

(p.s., I think you should still self-identify as Catholic, FWIW!)

 

[babochka]

The title basically says it all. I have been a cradle Catholic my entire life and have always been very active in the church. However, I thought it was ok if I didn’t 100% agree with the Church in some regards as long as I still followed the majority of it. My main issues are that I question the existence of Purgatory and I don’t believe in the Church’s stance on birth control. I have tried to convince myself to believe in these things, but I just can’t justify it. I still do believe in the sacraments, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the angels and saints, and the significance of Mary. But the more I look into it, the Internet states that this is viewed as being a “cafeteria Catholic” and is an unacceptable practice. Can anyone provide insight into this? I only ask because I’m newly engaged and trying to decide my faith path by determining if I should(am allowed to) stay Catholic or follow my fiancé down a Protestant path.

I think that there is a difference between rejecting a teaching of the church and struggling with a teaching of the church. If you are willing to continue to study the issues with a mind willing to conform to that of the church, you will eventually find yourself in a more comfortable place. I think that most serious Catholics have been, at some time or another, where you are now. Continue to learn and study and hold fast to the faith that you have.

 

[setarcos]

I understand what your saying here. I cant say I disagree entirely.

Someone can say “Of course the law says not to murder people because the state doesn’t want people to kill other people” and then shrug it off as if it isn’t truth because killing people hasn’t been a negative experience in their life.

Lets ask ourselves. Does Law = truth ? I would posit that Gods law = truth but the laws of men are fallible and may fail to align with Gods truth. This is why mans laws may be repealed. Now should we follow the laws of men without question? Should we disregard the laws of men because we haven’t had a bad experience in doing what the law forbids? How is it that we can determine when following the laws of men is in accord with Gods truth and when it is not and when it is not do we still follow the laws of men because they have been made law? It is no hard thing to show that feelings can lead men astray in this fallen world so acting on your feelings is not quite enough and since the laws of men are fallible following them without question may perhaps be immoral at times. Self reflection and reasoning with others I propose will get us closer to the truth than robotic compliance to the law or statement given and because we live in a fallen world it is not always a self evident thing to see Gods truth. Sometimes getting to the truth is a journey not a teleportation. Let us reason together says scripture. Sometimes a person will agree with a statement without even understanding what they are agreeing with. This in my opinion is dangerous.

 

[setarcos]

If one is Baptized with water and the words …In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yes, they are indeed “catholic”, because as Christians we believe and profess “one Baptism”

Then you would consider all baptized Jehovah Witnesses proper catholic, as in a member in good standing of Christ’s universal church who receive the indelible mark? It is a valid baptism?
Aside from this…let me reformulate the question to make it more specific for you, "In order to be baptized into (the Roman Catholic Church) what is the minimum that one must profess to believe in?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not baptize in the Name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They use their own formulation which lacks the proper understanding of the Triune God. As such, they are not properly Christian, and their baptism is not valid.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Thank you for explaining.

 

[CilladeRoma]

In order to be baptized into (the Roman Catholic Church) what is the minimum that one must profess to believe in?

The Apostle’s or Nicene Creed. That is what is professed at Baptism by the parents for their child or by a person who is of age and choosing Baptism for themselves.

 

[vsedriver]

However, I know natural family planning is acceptable. I just don’t understand how that is conceptually any different from taking a pill or using a barrier - all methods are for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy and all would seemingly interfere with God’s will if it was viewed in that sense

using natural family planning is working with God’s natural design. God designed women to be fertile at only certain times of the month. There is no requirement to have marital relations all the time. A couple can choose when to have relations and when not to have relations especially if they are spacing births. There is nothing wrong with spacing births. Working with God’s design is still being open to the purpose of the marital act.

Using a pill or barrier is not working with God’s natural design it is usurping God’s design and in a sense telling God that you are not going to do his will but your will. Your will to have the pleasure of the marital act without being fully open to the purposeful design of that act.

Either you trust God with your whole life or you don’t.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I just don’t understand how that is conceptually any different from taking a pill or using a barrier - all methods are for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy and all would seemingly interfere with God’s will if it was viewed in that sense.

If a couple dated a year and didn’t have sex, are they contracepting?

Not having sex is not the same as having sex and using a barrier. It’s pretty straightforward. It’s fasting. It honors the design of sexuality put in place God.

I don’t see why, for example, a couple who can’t afford or care for any more children shouldn’t be able to use other forms of birth control if natural family planning is acceptable.

You can ask the question about the couple who just can’t manage another child, why can’t they use contraception? The reality for you, today, is what are you going to decide? You are not in that place yet. You may never be in that place.

Are you going to make the decision that today I will honor God in my dating and tomorrow in my married life. I will ask for grace to have the courage and the faith to move forward holding God’s hand. You don’t know what tomorrow will bring. Do you really want to let go of God’s hand and move on without him? You have time to take a class on NFP, learn how to use the information it gives you. Do that regardless. It benefits women to understand what is going on in her cycle. Share that information with your friends! One of you may even discover something malignant going on and get early medical treatment because you recognized something going sideways.

 

[goodcatholic]

my answer will no doubt ruffle some feathers.
just work on your prayer life and Christian action plan. Don’t worry about the theological details.

 

[tafan2]

That is almost okay. But there is one thing to add:. you must, at a minimum, also give the Church your intellectual assent to those teachings you do not understand.

 

[setarcos]

Are you 100% perfect today? Do you think that you’ll be 100% perfect on the day you die? The Bible says that nothing imperfect will be in heaven. Soooo… something has to change between the point you die and the point you enter heaven, to make you perfect. We call that “something” Purgation .

Does that seem problematic to you?

Yes, it kinda does for me, course this may be because I am as yet ignorant of the process of purgatory.
How do you read 1 Corinthians 15…?
The concept of purgatory is somewhat vague and the details quibbled over by the church fathers.
Some questions I have that perhaps you could expound upon for me.
According to Catholic doctrine…“Purgatory …is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

So, Purgatory is a place or condition (are the two equivalent?) that takes place in time with a certain duration in time (temporal) after the death of the person who is in God’s grace.
A place after death, for a certain time span, as long as you died in God’s grace.
So how do you read 1 Corinthians 15:51-53? According to Paul not everyone will die before they become purified and Verse 52 seems to indicate that this purification will be instantaneous and without duration. So if some people will not die but are instantly purified at the last trumpet, of which this sight says in part IV. DURATION AND NATURE “punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment” then it would seem that those persons alive in the last days are actually in purgatory contrary to what was stated before, that is that purgatory is a “place or condition” after death.

 

[setarcos]

Now part IV. Qualifies the above statement by declaring “But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; …all of them before that last and strictest judgment.” This is clearly equivocating from the statement made in part I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of this document. Now if we grant that some are punished in this life only, then we must ask if we are dealing with the same purgatorial condition. Since temporally there is given certain time spans of purgatorial commitment of the soul by the Church the living must of necessity be restricted by the temporal limits of the natural human lifespan in which they find themselves before the last trumpet call. It also seems to me that those that are living through their purgatorial obligations are proactively involved in their own payment of the debt owed whereas those who have died are not since the temporal experiences of the dead are not the same as the living that being according to scripture which says the dead know nothing and death is like a sound sleep. It all seems piecemeal and vague to me. Even indulgences are misunderstood by many Catholics to be a means of lessening the length of time of a souls obligatory penance in purgatory by a set amount depending on the indulgence. Indulgences themselves are made so vague as to be meaningless with the Church simply declaring that if you make them your temporal punishments would be reduced, always with the qualifier “as GOD sees fit” and yet indulgences at one time were given set amounts of cost as concerns this lessoning. Now what information does this convey? How is it that the Church can set an indulgence but have no frame of reference by which to set that indulgences value? We all should be living a penitent lifestyle anyway.? Anyways…perhaps you can clear these things up abit for me.
God bless.

 

[setarcos]

I’m afraid they do. That is the actual words they use. I’ve personally witnessed this at one of their baptisms.
They merely have a different conception of what those words mean, not believing in a triune God…and incidentally I would venture to say no one has a proper understanding of the trinity. Its ineffable, though people keep trying with their ridiculous comparisons to the human condition and self contradictory analogies.
Sooo. this is my point. Its not simply the process of baptism itself, its what one professes a belief in before baptism and that that baptism represents that is the defining difference.

 

[setarcos]

Well now. That is something to grasp ahold of. Thank you. So any belief not found in the Nicene Creed is unnecessary to profess belief in to become a Roman Catholic then.

 

[setarcos]

I’m not sure how you can give your intellectual assent if you do not understand intellectually what your assenting to?